![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question. However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project. The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase. So, less sizzle and more steak please. Ben |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder. Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question. However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project. The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase. So, less sizzle and more steak please. Ben There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum at http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6 Ramy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote: Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder. Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question. However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project. The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase. So, less sizzle and more steak please. Ben There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6 Ramy I think posting it here is more appropriate as more people will see how bad this manufacturer is. This has been going on for way too long. They just don't give a ****! They sold us features that either are not implemented or they don't work properly. Isn't this a breach of agreement? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote: Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder. Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question. However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project. The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase. So, less sizzle and more steak please. Ben There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6 Ramy I think posting it here is more appropriate as more people will see how bad this manufacturer is. This has been going on for way too long. They just don't give a ****! They sold us features that either are not implemented or they don't work properly. Isn't this a breach of agreement? For heaven's sake folks, it seems like you're trying to put PF on the same level as a large corporation like Samsung, Apple or Microsoft. PF has done the US soaring community a huge service by being brave enough to introduce a challenging technology into our market. It's very hard to make a living in general aviation, let alone a decent living. I doubt these folks are getting rich at this. There are inevitable bugs in any technology development and I'd much rather have the PF capabilities sooner and help debug them than to wait until it's fully "mature". Perfect is the enemy of good. Yes, I'd love to have the logging function up for this season, but if it's a choice between enhanced PCAS or logging, I'll wait for the logging. Small companies, limited resources. That's our world in soaring and I'm constantly amazed at the creativity and passion that's brought to bear on improving our sport. A happy PF customer. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 2, 5:41*pm, Craig Funston
wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote: On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote: Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder. Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
Ramy Ramy, with respect, I've been asking since October on the official forum, and after 2.6 beta was released (on very short notice, which was very good of them), there has been silence from the company. 3 February, 4 March, 3 April posts... deafening silence. Even an auto response ("Your business is important to us" - which normally bother me) would be nice. A lot of people view the requests, but no one posts to say they agree - one voice from the wilderness is apparently easy to ignore. I'll buy you a beer - Canadian beer - if you send me 2.7 beta. I promise, no one will ever know... really, I can keep my mouth shut (though reviewing my posts on their website doesn't look like it). I am very happy with the anti-collision, and PCAS functions, of my Brick. I wish I had FLARMnet data in my display, but I'm more concerned by what is out there, and less of "who". Dan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 3, 8:27*am, Dan Daly wrote:
There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6 Ramy Ramy, with respect, I've been asking since October on the official forum, and after 2.6 beta was released (on very short notice, which was very good of them), there has been silence from the company. 3 February, 4 March, 3 April posts... deafening silence. *Even an auto response ("Your business is important to us" - which normally bother me) would be nice. A lot of people view the requests, but no one posts to say they agree - one voice from the wilderness is apparently easy to ignore. I'll buy you a beer - Canadian beer - if you send me 2.7 beta. *I promise, no one will ever know... really, I can keep my mouth shut (though reviewing my posts on their website doesn't look like it). I am very happy with the anti-collision, and PCAS functions, of my Brick. I wish I had FLARMnet data in my display, but I'm more concerned by what is out there, and less of "who". Dan I also have sent e-mail to my dealer, for him to pass on to the company; I recommend everyone do that as well. To their dealers, of course, not mine! Dan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 2, 6:40*pm, wrote:
Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay. Ben, I support you 100%! You are right! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April.
Documentation, webpage and communication updates are in process too, but firmware has top priority, for now. The version which was tested by IGC/GFAC for the approval did fulfill their requirements, but did not contain some of the collision avoidance and other features which will be in v3.0. Our release testing has become much lengthier and elaborate over the years; 'I think it works' is not sufficient... Sorry for not monitoring R.A.S frequently, for completeness here our previous post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....s/2ShK5S6nXN8J FLARM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PowerFLARM 2.60 beta available | [email protected] | Soaring | 7 | November 2nd 12 12:11 AM |
PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM Remote Display Manuals Available | Paul Remde | Soaring | 30 | May 25th 12 11:58 PM |
Status PowerFLARM for USA | [email protected] | Soaring | 7 | July 14th 11 07:24 PM |
PowerFLARM | Paul Remde | Soaring | 9 | November 6th 10 04:30 AM |
PowerFLARM | Greg Arnold[_2_] | Soaring | 6 | November 2nd 10 09:32 AM |